David Bennett 2

Latest posts by David Bennett 2

Just to say that in another experiment elsewhere I was on the treaddie for 90 mins + 5K, which in the end equated to about a half marathon. It was not a major problem in terms of boredom, but we did have to keep jumping off to give samples which made it slightly more intersting. There were 5 sessions to do of this. I would never consider running for that long on a treadmill normally!

Question - can you use a bivvy bag and poncho instead of a tent? Surely this will save a bit of weight?

I had a bivvy bag for a number of years and its not really much lighter than a modern tent, but with all the disadvantages of a bivvy. In competitions you are not allowed the bivvy poncho combination either, so its not a starter if you have any inclinations that way.

I use the standard TN laser for the advantage of the second zip - escape in the night for a pee is much easier when you have the second one! The weight penalty for this is about 200g, which I am happy with...

I have been fine with a 300g of down bag in summer and autumn, but the 550g fill bag has been fine in winter in lowland locations.

Foot pod? Not sure what that is. Do they measure distance accurately? That's what I want.

Yes and no. They can be very accurate, but in general I would say for trails they are less accurate than a GPS with good sky cover. How accurately do you need your data to be?

E.g. I have run a 5K on a track with my footpod calibrated over just a 400m loop of the track and it measured within 10metres - that 99.8% accurate. However, on the different surface of the roads on the way home it was about 5% out. Recalibrating on the road and I've got over 99% accuracy for runs consistently of a known distance - i.e. known race routes. PArt of the algorithm used to work out distance seems to rely on accurately knowing when your foot hits the ground and also from understanding the depth from the footpod to the ground through the shoe. Soft springy surfaces seem to increase the distance, while hard surfaces seems to reduce it.

However, I have seen enough GPS units give inaccurate data as well - e.g. 10 mile races recorded as 10.3,, which is 97% accurate. I'm not sure about the very latest units, but there was a time where there would hardly be a run go by without one person in the group getting a duff reading from the GPS or a lack of signal, or the unit would lock up. As a rule of thumb, expect your GPS to give you upwards of 98% accuracy, and footpods generally upwards of 95%.

I've used the Timex bodylink system and would agree its not great in many respects, but the battery does last a reasonable time.

Alternatively with the external GPS unit the latest Polar RCX5 has a battery life of about 20 hours. The unit is pretty expensive though at about £300!

TBH they can be a rigth pain for people trying to read your number at (a) the Finish and (b) other points on the course.

If you use old fashioned number recording techniques its easy to disqualify people whose numbers aren't visible and hence 'have not travelled through a half way check point'. It can cause issues at the finish if it takes longer to record numbers when lots of people have their numbers in stealth mode...

By the amount so that over all races insured, the insurer would make a profit after paying out.

Say 1/100 races were cancelled and each one had 100 runners paying £10.

That is saying 1 in 100 races would need to pay out £1000 back to competitors.

So each race would have to pay at least £10 to insure this. MOre likely each race would have to pay £30 to insure against this (if all races were equally weighted in terms of cancellation), as the insurer would (a) have to cover their overheads and (b) make a profit.

That's fine you say, that's only £0.30 per competitor.

So now you enter 100 races over space of a few years and 1 is cancelled. You get back your £10, but you've paid £30 to get your £10 back. Still want insurance for low value items?

I've simplified this slightly, as the company taking out the insurance will no doubt want to include admin costs for the cancellation, say another £100 to copy and post all the letters out and employ someone to do some of it...That adds a few more pence to the insurance.

Then someone thinks they should get a refund on their hotel they stayed in, then someone wants to claim on their new race shoes they bought, even though its a spurious claim, then insurance company has to deal with that, eventually involving a court case and their solicitors and a barrister. This costs them a fair bit, so they now charge £50 per race and you are paying £50 to get your £10 back...

That's how insurance works.

Personally I'd take the £10 loss every now and again rather than worry aboutit. Only insure those things your really cannot do without, or do not want to do without, or as required by law.Motoring, yes, House contents and buildings, yes - you can't live without a home. Live insurance, so your children can grow up out of poverty, yes. £8.00 for Insurance on a £50 MP3 player...errr. No.... Thank you.

Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved. Runner's World, Part of the Hearst UK wellbeing network